Help - Past Church Authorities And Their Words

[canard78]

You will note that the Church does not actually attempt to define "official doctrine" in that statement. The closest that they get is to what I have said about things being "officially binding".

And one last point -- while I would insist that the article you are citing is official doctrine -- you would apparently be compelled to say it is not.

It's an irony that had not escaped me.

[CASteinman]

It's an irony that had not escaped me.

Too bad we can't call that a canard. Stuck with perhaps .. quandary?

[mathonihah]

So you say. But that is not what he said.

That is the exact implication of what he said.

Apparently your claim on this matter is not true because it does not match what is said in the Standard Works.

How does it not? I think that it does.

And I have it on good authority that I may reject it on that basis and that basis alone.

You have no such authority. What is that authority based on?

You sound exactly like an anti-Mormon.

I sound exactly like Harold B. Lee, and Joseph Fielding Smith, and B. H. Roberts, and J. Reuben Clark, even Bruice R. McConkie, and official Newsroom statement often quoted etc. I think that is in pretty good company to be in.

But never mind. This is irrelevant regarding the notion of "Official Doctrine" a topic Harold B. Lee was not even addressing.

That is because your notion of "official doctrine" may be logically self-sustaining, but a pedantic irrelevance. The only kind of doctrine that anybody is interested in is true doctrine, not "official doctrine" as you want to define it.

Ok... so you think it is relevant. And yet you fail to show how. Remember, the issue was a a matter of official doctrine. Its not a matter of truth. Nor a matter of what is binding on people to believe. But a matter of what constitutes official doctrine.

For me it is a matter of truth. "Official doctrine" is meaningless if it is not true.

And you should note, he does not even discuss that matter.

Because he is interested in the truth, like I am, not a pedantic (and useless) definition of what is official and what is not.

[Scott Lloyd]

I humbly think that the church doesn't have clear doctrines sometimes. The doctrine of polygamy is still in the D & C, yet Pres. Hinckley has mentioned that it is not doctrine? I'd love it if the church would put out the doctrines of the church in a nutshell. And if it's officially not doctrine what about those that are still sealed in the temple to many wives?

I disagree that President Hinckley ever said it is not doctrine, but I invite you to document your assertion, if you can.

I've no doubt that President Hinckley denounced the practice of polygamy among apostate or schismatic groups that are offshoots from Mormonism, but that is not the same thing as denying the doctrine of plurality of wives as it was revealed to and taught by Joseph Smith and taught by other Church presidents until Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto.

[Tacenda]

I disagree that President Hinckley ever said it is not doctrine, but I invite you to document your assertion, if you can.

I've no doubt that President Hinckley denounced the practice of polygamy among apostate or schismatic groups that are offshoots from Mormonism, but that is not the same thing as denying the doctrine of plurality of wives as it was revealed to and taught by Joseph Smith and taught by other Church presidents until Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto.

It was quoted in one of the threads. Maybe this one (?) recently, in an interview with Larry King he said that it wasn't doctrinal. Isn't that the same thing? Edited March 18, 2013 by Tacenda

[mathonihah]

It was quoted in one of the threads. Maybe this one (?) recently, in an interview with Larry King he said that it wasn't doctrinal. Isn't that the same thing?

He meant that it is not a practised doctrine, not that it is not a revealed doctrine. It says so in the D&C that it is. If it is not, then section 132 needs to be changed or removed.

[Scott Lloyd]

It was quoted in one of the threads. Maybe this one (?) recently, in an interview with Larry King he said that it wasn't doctrinal. Isn't that the same thing?

Please find the exact quote so we can evaluate it. If it was in the interview with King, if memory serves me, President Hinckley's frame of reference was how I have characterized it.

And no, it's not the same thing. The practice of plural marriage is right when God decrees it, wrong when undertaken without His authorization. That's the doctrine; it's quite clear.

And the distinction is very important and what you seem to be missing.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CASteinman]

That is the exact implication of what he said.

So you say. But he did not say that was his implication. Neither to the standard works. I have it on good authority I can reject your statement merely on that grounds.

How does it not? I think that it does.

The Standard Works never declare that the Standard Works are the end of Truth. They also do not declare that the Standard Works and the pronunciations of the prophets in the past, present and future are the end of truth. Not only that but the scriptures say that we should actively be seeking revelation. If we KNOW that not all things have been revealed to the prophets and not all things have been revealed in the scriptures, then when we seek revelation, it should not surprise us if we learn things that are new. Indeed, if the revelations are personalized, they must be new and different.

For example, in the case of Nephi -- who was NOT the prophet at the time -- he was told to kill Laban, despite the fact that such things were forbidden by commandment. He resisted but was ultimately faithful to the Lord. In the same way, Joseph Smith, who was not yet called to be a prophet, was told to join no Church but to wait on the Lord for a Restoration. That was not something he could have gotten from the scriptures and can't even be said to be taught anywhere in the scriptures -- that you should NOT join any Church until there is a restoration.

And we know that ultimately, all truth shall be ours, but not from prophets but rather from God: "The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things" and "By the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things".

Note that there is place in all the scriptures that say "and by the power of the scriptures and the prophets shall you know the truth of all things".

But if you read what Harold B. Lee says you would be inclined to think so. What he says is not actually in perfect harmony with the scriptures -- if you read it the way you have read it. HOWEVER, if you read it the way I think he intended it is in perfect harmony. The way he intended it is that there are some revelations that are binding upon the members of the Church and some that are not. Those that are, are found in the Standard Works and in the approved statements of the First Presidency and the Twelve.

That, however, is not the definition of official doctrine.

You have no such authority. What is that authority based on?

The authority I was referring to was you -- your quote of Harold B. Lee. If I use that quote, I may utterly reject your words as being entirely your own opinion. I don't even have to think about it very hard, just reject it out of hand.

I sound exactly like Harold B. Lee, and Joseph Fielding Smith, and B. H. Roberts, and J. Reuben Clark, even Bruice R. McConkie, and official Newsroom statement often quoted etc. I think that is in pretty good company to be in.

No, you don't. You sound like an anti-Mormon explaining why the canon of scripture is closed. But that is really irrelevant to the larger issue.

That is because your notion of "official doctrine" may be logically self-sustaining, but a pedantic irrelevance. The only kind of doctrine that anybody is interested in is true doctrine, not "official doctrine" as you want to define it.

That is obviously not true. Anti-Mormons are always interested in attacking us on what is "official doctrine". In so doing they often actually quote lots of things that cannot be validated as official doctrine by any objective standard.

"Official doctrine" is meaningless if it is not true.

Nonsense.

Because he is interested in the truth, like I am, not a pedantic (and useless) definition of what is official and what is not.

It is a strange irony that you think you are not being pedantic.

[CASteinman]

It was quoted in one of the threads. Maybe this one (?) recently, in an interview with Larry King he said that it wasn't doctrinal. Isn't that the same thing?

Without knowing precisely -- I believe what he said was "not doctrine" is the doctrine that "as man is God once was".

And he misspoke. Of course it is doctrine. Its not doctrine that is taught much. Like him, I am not sure I have ever actually heard it taught very much in Church.

But it is doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

I think this is an example of how official doctrine (which you are quoting) can either contain error is or can be misleading.

The above statement is an example. It is technically correct -- but misleading.

For example, if Joseph Smith said "I am hungry" that would not have been doctrine, but it definitely would have been a statement by him. Clearly then, not all statements are "doctrine". But when you say something like "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. " Most people will read that as "Not every DOCTRINAL statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine."

Which is a self contradictory reading. Of course EVERY doctrinal statement made by a past leader is doctrine. By definition.

What this sentence should have made more clear is that "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes OFFICIAL CHURCH doctrine".

An example would be when Joseph Smith said "States Rights is a Stink in the Nose of God" (or words to that effect). Its a doctrinal statement. But it is not an official statement of Doctrine by the Church.

No one man or small group of men in the church establishes doctrine. It is the combined unanimous statement of the First Presidency, AND the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, AND presented the the Church for their sustaining, establish what is doctrine. To date no "I am hungry" type statement has met that necessary qualification.

[Scott Lloyd]

Without knowing precisely -- I believe what he said was "not doctrine" is the doctrine that "as man is God once was".

And he misspoke. Of course it is doctrine. Its not doctrine that is taught much. Like him, I am not sure I have ever actually heard it taught very much in Church.

But it is doctrine.

No, I'm pretty sure the quote Tacenda has in mind pertains to polygamy. And I think I found the quote in question. It is on this website that gives an excerpt from the CNN interview by Larry King.

It is just as I suspected and remembered. Viewed in the context of the questions that were asked and answered, President Hinckley's statement that "it is not doctrinal" refers to the unauthorized practice of plural marriage as it is carried on today by the apostate offshoot groups in Utah that Larry King's questions had reference to.

It is altogether inaccurate and improper to apply President Hinckley's words to the revelation given to and taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith and his successors in the presidency of the Church. Antagonists of the Church will try to make it seem otherwise, but their objective is not to convey truth, it is to discredit the Church. Beware their tactics.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

Without knowing precisely -- I believe what he said was "not doctrine" is the doctrine that "as man is God once was".

And he misspoke. Of course it is doctrine. Its not doctrine that is taught much. Like him, I am not sure I have ever actually heard it taught very much in Church.

But it is doctrine.

Gerald N. Lund agrees with you:

"It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today."

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/02/i-have-a-question

Wait a minute... a doctrine? But an unofficial one... but it's in the Ensign... not doctrine... but... ah well. Elder Lund say's it's doctrine.

But I think Tacenda is talking about a different quote to the "As man is" quote. It's about Polygamy not being doctrine.

[OmnerHimni]

I joined this forum just for the topic of this thread. I've read the entire thread.

I am confused.

For those who want a strict interpretation of "official doctrine" and believe that the standard works are the only source for "official doctrine," what is the point of general conference, manuals, the ensign, church leaders publishing their own books, etc.? If each person is supposed to find out for themselves through the spirit, there is really no point in all of the publications. Churches could be reduced tremendously to simply provide for ordinances and not everything else.

Why have so many words printed that lead to disagreement and confusion instead of agreement and clarity?

[canard78]

I joined this forum just for the topic of this thread. I've read the entire thread.

I am confused.

For those who want a strict interpretation of "official doctrine" and believe that the standard works are the only source for "official doctrine," what is the point of general conference, manuals, the ensign, church leaders publishing their own books, etc.? If each person is supposed to find out for themselves through the spirit, there is really no point in all of the publications. Churches could be reduced tremendously to simply provide for ordinances and not everything else.

Why have so many words printed that lead to disagreement and confusion instead of agreement and clarity?

It depends on perspectives. I don't take The God Who Weeps as Church Doctrine - it's not even from a GA. But it's a book that has had more impact on my perspectives on life and its meaning than any other for a long time. I also enjoy reading C.S. Lewis. Not doctrine, but he gets it.

As such, I don't take the words in General Conference to be official doctrine - but I would happily listen to Elder Uchtdorf for several hours a day if he produced the content.

[Stone holm]

No, I'm pretty sure the quote Tacenda has in mind pertains to polygamy. And I think I found the quote in question. It is on this website that gives an excerpt from the CNN interview by Larry King.

It is just as I suspected. Viewed in the context of the questions that were asked and answered, President Hinckley's statement that "it is not doctrinal" refers to the unauthorized practice of plural marriage as it is carried on today by the apostate offshoot groups in Utah that Larry King's questions had reference to.

It is altogether inaccurate and improper to apply President Hinckley's words to the revelation given to and taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith and his successors in the presidency of the Church. Antagonists of the Church will try to make it seem otherwise, but their objective is not to convey truth, it is to discredit the Church. Beware their tactics.

I assume everyone on here realizes that in a sense we still practice it since a remarried widower such as myself can remains sealed to his first wife when he marries again in the Temple.

[CASteinman]

It is just as I suspected and remembered. Viewed in the context of the questions that were asked and answered, President Hinckley's statement that "it is not doctrinal" refers to the unauthorized practice of plural marriage as it is carried on today by the apostate offshoot groups in Utah that Larry King's questions had reference to.

I think President Hinkley would have done a more precise job saying "It is not allowed and is apostate -- we will excommunicate people who do this". I think saying it is not doctrinal however, is reasonable to a broad public audience who does not care about nuances.

[CASteinman]

Wait a minute... a doctrine? But an unofficial one... but it's in the Ensign... not doctrine... but... ah well. Elder Lund say's it's doctrine.

I think it is doctrine and I think it is probably official doctrine in at least some forms. I think arguing that it is not is at the very least inaccurate.

But its not taught much.

[CASteinman]

It depends on perspectives. I don't take The God Who Weeps as Church Doctrine - it's not even from a GA. But it's a book that has had more impact on my perspectives on life and its meaning than any other for a long time. I also enjoy reading C.S. Lewis. Not doctrine, but he gets it.

But it is doctrine. It is CS Lewis Doctrine. Even if you think it is God's Truth.

As such, I don't take the words in General Conference to be official doctrine

But they are official Church Doctrine. Even if you do not like what they say.

There is no connection between the concept of something being doctrine -- and whether you accept it as truth or not.

[thesometimesaint]

But it is doctrine. It is CS Lewis Doctrine. Even if you think it is God's Truth.

But they are official Church Doctrine. Even if you do not like what they say.

There is no connection between the concept of something being doctrine -- and whether you accept it as truth or not.

Not even GC is doctrine. Though it's obvious they have doctrinal statements in them.

True; it doesn't matter if we like what they say or not. However everything that is said in GC is not doctrine.

See Common Consent. http://www.lds.org/m...onsent?lang=eng

Edited March 18, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[pogi]

But they are official Church Doctrine. Even if you do not like what they say.

There is no connection between the concept of something being doctrine -- and whether you accept it as truth or not.

CFR. Please show me where it says that GC talks are "official doctrine"? You have to understand that something can be true and still not be considered "official" doctrine.

Edited March 18, 2013 by pogi

[OmnerHimni]

As such, I don't take the words in General Conference to be official doctrine

But they are official Church Doctrine. Even if you do not like what they say.

So, CASteinman, did you just say that talks given in General COnference are "official church doctrine"? As in "Official Doctrine"? Or is this some kind of semantic game?

[OmnerHimni]

Still confused.

If each person is supposed to find out for themselves through the spirit, there is really no point in all of the publications. Churches could be reduced tremendously to simply provide for ordinances and not everything else.

For those who have a strict interpretation of "official doctrine" and believe that the standard works are the only source for "official doctrine," what is the point of general conference, manuals, the ensign, church leaders publishing their own books, etc.?

[pogi]

For those who have a strict interpretation of "official doctrine" and believe that the standard works are the only source for "official doctrine," what is the point of general conference, manuals, the ensign, church leaders publishing their own books, etc.?

For the same reason that you go to school, even though you have the text books right in front of you. While school teachers may occasionally deviate from the text books, general authorities pay careful attention to not deviate from the scriptures. This does not mean that the scriptures are closed. They are very much open, but revelations must go through a specific process beyond simply giving a talk in GC to make it into the "official doctrine" category.

Edited March 18, 2013 by pogi

[canard78]

But it is doctrine. It is CS Lewis Doctrine. Even if you think it is God's Truth.

But they are official Church Doctrine. Even if you do not like what they say.

There is no connection between the concept of something being doctrine -- and whether you accept it as truth or not.

So how far back do you go?

Much of Journal of Discourse was given in early General Conferences. Do you include those as Official Doctrine?

Are there men on the moon? Is that official church doctrine?

Is Adam and God the Father the same person? Is that official church doctrine?

I could also go to some 1970s talks and quote a few 'interesting' statements from General Conference. Elder Kimball's talk on sexual 'ills' has some odd statements like suggesting the veneration of the big 'O' and wife swapping are 'similar crazes.' Is that Official Doctrine?!

(https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng)

[OmnerHimni]

For the same reason that you go to school, even though you have the text books right in front of you. While school teachers may occasionally deviate from the text books, general authorities pay careful attention to not deviate from the scriptures. This does not mean that the scriptures are closed. They are very much open, but revelations must go through a specific process beyond simply giving a talk in GC to make it into the "official doctrine" category.

Thanks pogi. I understand the scriptures are open and that more scripture can be canonized through proper channels to make it "official doctrine." That's not my conundrum/question.

My question is, what is the purpose of general conference, manuals, the publication of books by GAs, etc.? Why are they providing those things for us, when in the end, we are just relying on the spirit anyhow?

You say that "general authorities pay careful attention to not deviate from the scriptures." But that's not true, that's why there is this ongoing thread. Because the GAs do at times deviate. Which leaves us to wonder and figure out on our own through the help of the spirit to gain a testimony. Again, why not just skip the middlemen?